1) The 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution (the "income
tax amendment") was fraudulently and illegally proclaimed to
be ratified in 1913. Exhaustive legal research from both state and
national archives documented conclusively that the amendment did not even
come close to being legally approved by the required number of states.

The Courts have refused to hear this issue.

"[Defendant] Stahl's claim that ratification of the 16th
Amendment was fraudulently certified constitutes a political question
because we could not undertake independent resolution of this issue
without expressing lack of respect due coordinate branches of
government...."

U.S. v Stahl (1986), 792 F2d 1438

Note:
Article II of the U.S. Constitution says no direct tax shall be levied upon the
public except through reapportionment after a census is taken. The 16th amendment
which "authorized" federal income tax should have never been passed because it
runs contrary to the body of the Constitution. The original definition of amendment
has been changed to accomodate this illegality. Originally and amendment could not
be brought forth that ran contrary to what it was amending; i.e. amendment was
defined as : amplify, clarify, expound, extend, but the only thing that cannot be
brought up in the amendment process is that which runs contrary to what is being
amended. The founding fathers understood this definition, that is why there was a
provision for a constitutional convention.

"[T]he Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply
prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation
possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the
category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged."
-
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/pdf/con027.pdf

In one of the first income tax cases to go to the Supreme Court, Stanton v.
Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), Stanton's attorney made the point 35
times in his briefs and oral argument that the 16th Amendment created a new
class of taxes, that is a direct tax not regulated by the apportionment rule.
Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court stated in its opinion, "By the
previous ruling [Brushaber] it was settled that the provisions of the Sixteenth
Amendment conferred no new power of taxation." - Therefore, there is no exception
to the apportionment rule for direct taxes.

The political activism to amend the Constitution allowing for an income tax
started as a result of the Supreme Courtís Pollock ruling. The Pollock Case
determined that income taxes on investment and business profit were direct
taxes. Pollock was a stretch and, the American People thought, a bad ruling.
The income that was taxed in Pollock did not diminish the source, but only
took its bite out of profits that were generated from the source. At the time,
only about 10 percent of Americans had an income; the rest worked for wages
or salaries. The purpose of the 16th Amendment was to take income taxes out
of the category of direct taxes, where the Supreme Court put it, and place
it back into the category of indirect taxes where it had previously been.
Constitutionally speaking, the income tax of the 16th Amendment is an indirect
tax and can be levied only on investment income and business profit.

2) Filing a federal income tax return is, in fact, voluntary,
because there is no statute or regulation that requires the vast
majority of U.S. citizens to file and pay income taxes -- or to have taxes
withheld from the money they earn.

Neither the IRS nor the Congress can cite an
authorizing law or regulation.

3) Citizens cannot "voluntarily" file a federal income
tax return without surrendering their 5th amendment right not to
bear witness against themselves.

You can be criminally prosecuted for your
"voluntary" return.

Legal Facts & Did You Know

Re:Position #1

The issue of the fraudulent ratification of the 16th amendment has
never been decided by a court of law. The courts have instead tossed
the issue into the lap of Congress as a "political
question," even though fraud is a clear issue for judicial
review, not a political question.

A brief report printed by the Congressional Research Service in 1985
states up front that, "The report does not attempt to rebut
specific factual allegations?." It then goes on to make the
astonishing assertion that the actions of a government official must
be presumed to be correct and cannot be judged or overturned by the
courts! (John Ripy, "Ratification of the Sixteenth
Amendment." CRS, 1985.)

An attorney speaking for Senator Orin Hatch in 1984 offered to pay
former tax investigator William Benson a fortune not to publish his
research proving that the 16th amendment did not even come close
to being legally ratified by the required number of states in 1913.

Philander Knox, Secretary of State from 1909 to 1913 during the Taft
administration, proclaimed the 16th amendment to be ratified just a
few days before he left office in 1913, to make way for the Wilson
administration, even though he knew it had not been legally
ratified.

Philander Knox had for many years been the primary attorney for the
richest men in America, including Carnegie, Rockefeller, Morgan and
the Vanderbilts. He had created for them the largest cartel in the
world, then was appointed, at their request, as Attorney General in
the McKinley/Roosevelt administrations, where he refused to enforce
the Sherman anti-trust laws against the cartel he had just
created.

The income tax amendment was pushed through Congress in 1909 by Sen.
Nelson Aldrich, father-in-law of John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and
grandfather and namesake of Nelson A. Rockefeller, and would not have
been ratified if Knox had not fraudulently proclaimed it so.

Example: Oklahoma's legislature changed the amendment's wording so
that it meant just the opposite of what was submitted to the states by
Congress, but Knox counted Oklahoma as approving the amendment.

Example: Minnesota did not submit any results or copy of their
vote to Knox, yet he counted Minnesota as approving the
amendment.

Legal scholars have agreed that if any state violated provisions of
its own state constitution in the ratification process, its approval
would be null and void. At least 20 states were guilty of serious
violations of their constitutions. For example, Tennessee's
constitution provided that the state legislature could not act upon
any proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution submitted by Congress
until after the next state legislative elections. Yet the Tennessee
legislature acted on the proposed 16th amendment the same month it was
received and before any elections.

Judges have been extraordinarily unwilling to allow defendants in
"failure to file" cases to present evidence or testimony of
expert researchers regarding the constitutionality of the 16th
amendment.

Re:Position #2

Juries have been acquitting defendants in failure-to-file income tax
return cases due to lack of demonstrable evidence that there is any
law or regulation that requires it.

An increasing number of employers have stopped withholding taxes
from their workers, and stopped filing W-2s and 1099s for the same
reason.

Unless one is a foreigner working in the U.S., or a U.S. citizen
earning money abroad, one is not liable for the federal income
tax.

The OMB Number on Form 1040 is cross-referenced in the Code of
Federal Regulations to the section covering taxes by resident aliens,
which, therefore, doesn't apply to most Americans.

Responding to an inquiry by a constituent who was a tax consultant,
Sen. Daniel Inouye told him that based on research performed by the
Congressional Research Service, no provision of the Internal
Revenue Code requires an individual to pay income taxes. He then
went on to warn that Section 7201 sets forth numerous penalties for
not paying income taxes owed. However -

The failure-to-file law applies to alcohol-tobacco-firearms taxes,
(Section 7201), not to income taxes, and convictions are based on the mis-application
of the alcohol-tobacco- firearm regulations.

No law requires employees to provide a Social Security Number
to an employer, nor for an employer to demand one from an employee.

Re:Position #3

The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the filing of an
income tax return (Form 1040) and the information on the 1040 is not
compelled, and, therefore, the principle that no one may be forced to
waive their 5th amendment rights in order to comply with a law is not
applicable to federal income tax returns.

No one has been able to collect the $50,000 reward offered by
William Conklin (www.anti-irs.com) to anyone who can:

1) show how to file a federal income tax return without
waiving one's 5th amendment rights, and2) identify what statute in the Internal Revenue Code makes a
typical worker liable to pay an income tax.

We hope you will join many who now believe that the time has come for
our government and our nation to begin a long-overdue process of public
debates concerning the economic, political and constitutional problems
posed by the true legal restrictions upon our current system of
taxation.

As a nation of justice and due process, we cannot tolerate a tax
system, or a government, that seizes our property, sends us to prison and
induces fear in our hearts -- while refusing to provide us basic proof
of their legal authority, clearly written tax codes and unambiguous legal
ruling on Constitutional and legal issues concerning the income tax.

We pray that you be convinced that nothing less than our freedoms, our
property and our Republic are at stake. The Soul of America needs
illumination.